Zell to Purchase Tribune Co., Sell Cubs

[Magnetic Curses]

i'm hoping that bruce wayne makes a bid. that would be so awesome!

[DivineBovine]

Why are people freaking out about the importance of the WGN relationship? I just don't get it.

 

 

All this just confirms to me that the Trib was bad for the team.

 

 

WGN already has a long term deal with the Cubs. From the trib site:

 

Tribune, which owns the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, WGN-Ch. 9, WGN-AM 720 and other media properties, has long-term contracts in place for Cubs programming on WGN television and radio, as well as with Comcast SportsNet Chicago, which Tribune helped launch in 2004.

 

It is on the tribune site now, and I'm sure its intentional. They probably even conveniently extended this deal in the offseason. I doubt that anyone who buys the team would be able to break this deal without the Trib having something to say about it. Everyone mentions how the national TV audience is good for the game, but the Trib has been fleecing the Cubs on radio/TV revenue since the team has been bought. WGN lowballs the Cubs on TV/radio deals and then the Trib cries to all the fans that they simply don't have the money to spend on a team because of low revenue. Pure bull$hit, and this offseason just proves it. I've been calling WGN the Cubs money laundering operation ever since I've joined this wonderful site, and this offseason has been proof in my mind.

 

Any affiliation with WGN doesn't help the Cubs put a good team on the field, IMO, it hurts it. What gave the Yanks so much damn cash a few years back? It was dumping MSG and starting its own network- the YES network. Trust me, NOBODY in NYC watches YES for much else than the Yanks. The Cubs are owned by the TV network, not the other way around. The primary source of money for any team, the local TV/radio, is simply not fetching fair value in the Cubs case. We all know the Cubs have one of the strongest fanbases in all of baseball, and its not because of the people out of town who catch the games on WGN. It's mostly from being the most popular team in one of the greatest sports markets in the country.

 

Nice how the Trib decides all the sudden to sell the team after spending $300 million in the offseason. After all, those cheapskates won't have to pay a lousy dime of those longterm deals after this season. They could just reap the rewards of their longterm TV deal, which will produce good ratings and good revenue, all the while fleecing the Cubs.

 

I'm sick of the Trib. Good riddance. And how can anyone buy their "winning for the fans" crap. I want any owner who's not in it strictly for cash, and who wants to win. Bring on Cuban - who gives a damn if he's a Pirates fan? I doubt he was a Mavs fan before either. Bring on Colangelo. Bring on any rich dude who doesn't care to make the Cubs a sheer profit making endeaver, like the Trib did.

[shnsajax]

Why are people freaking out about the importance of the WGN relationship? I just don't get it.

 

 

All this just confirms to me that the Trib was bad for the team.

 

 

WGN already has a long term deal with the Cubs. From the trib site:

 

Tribune, which owns the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, WGN-Ch. 9, WGN-AM 720 and other media properties, has long-term contracts in place for Cubs programming on WGN television and radio, as well as with Comcast SportsNet Chicago, which Tribune helped launch in 2004.

 

It is on the tribune site now, and I'm sure its intentional. They probably even conveniently extended this deal in the offseason. I doubt that anyone who buys the team would be able to break this deal without the Trib having something to say about it. Everyone mentions how the national TV audience is good for the game, but the Trib has been fleecing the Cubs on radio/TV revenue since the team has been bought. WGN lowballs the Cubs on TV/radio deals and then the Trib cries to all the fans that they simply don't have the money to spend on a team because of low revenue. Pure bull$hit, and this offseason just proves it. I've been calling WGN the Cubs money laundering operation ever since I've joined this wonderful site, and this offseason has been proof in my mind.

 

Any affiliation with WGN doesn't help the Cubs put a good team on the field, IMO, it hurts it. What gave the Yanks so much damn cash a few years back? It was dumping MSG and starting its own network- the YES network. Trust me, NOBODY in NYC watches YES for much else than the Yanks. The Cubs are owned by the TV network, not the other way around. The primary source of money for any team, the local TV/radio, is simply not fetching fair value in the Cubs case. We all know the Cubs have one of the strongest fanbases in all of baseball, and its not because of the people out of town who catch the games on WGN. It's mostly from being the most popular team in one of the greatest sports markets in the country.

 

Nice how the Trib decides all the sudden to sell the team after spending $300 million in the offseason. After all, those cheapskates won't have to pay a lousy dime of those longterm deals after this season. They could just reap the rewards of their longterm TV deal, which will produce good ratings and good revenue, all the while fleecing the Cubs.

 

I'm sick of the Trib. Good riddance. And how can anyone buy their "winning for the fans" crap. I want any owner who's not in it strictly for cash, and who wants to win. Bring on Cuban - who gives a damn if he's a Pirates fan? I doubt he was a Mavs fan before either. Bring on Colangelo. Bring on any rich dude who doesn't care to make the Cubs a sheer profit making endeaver, like the Trib did.

 

I'm really warming up to the idea of Bill Murray assuming he has the capital or group of investors to make it happen.

[sunnydoo]

1st off excellent timing by the boys at the Trib again. Hits the Natl Media on Opening Day. Way to take care of things in the offseason again, so we dont have this mess going on all season.

 

Special bonus points for holding up the Z deal now too. Timing is everything and you guys fail.

 

 

The interesting question here is this: 3 billionaire groups already have stated interest. And thats just who we know of so far. The one that probably has the inside track however, has an interesting decision to make.

 

Wrigley Co. has said numerous times that it was one of the worst mistakes they ever made in being forced to sell the Cubs. They have the money and the liquid cash to get a deal done. However, they are also looking at purchasing the half of the Cadbury company that is now up for sale- especially since the Hershey deal now appears to be a hoax. So can they afford both (which i doubt after last years acquisition of Krafts Candy division), or which one will they choose? Should be an interesting decision either way.

 

As for the WGN thing. I heard that the 25% stake in the Comcast/Fox Sports thing is going with the Cubs, but not necessarily the WGN part. I think being the minority partner in the Sox, they would be a fool to give it up. So we can look forward to all the media outlets being after the Cubs now in Chicago and slowly but surely more Sox games on WGN.

[cbbryan]

I would rather an individual own the Cubs, instead of a corp. like the Trib. owning the Cubs.

 

At least w/ an individual you know who makes the final decision. It's all about shareholders now. It's not really about winning, it's about making money. It's like the Trib didn't understand that you can still make money if you put a great product on the field and they win more then 60-70 games a year.

[sunnydoo]

I would rather an individual own the Cubs, instead of a corp. like the Trib. owning the Cubs.

 

I would also, like the Boss in NY. But with the amount of money its going to take to get a deal done (and dont kid yourself, even with 300M committed over the upcoming years- no way do the Cubs go for less than 800M), its just no longer feasible.

 

I fully expect the Cubs to go somewhere in the $1B range. Too many interested parties already that have a serious load of cash and ties.

 

This is one of the marquee sports franchises in all of Sports, with a huge fan base, stadium, and big TV contracts already in place. Also Baseball as a whole is doing very well profit wise atm (look at Seligs comments last week), so really i dont think 1B is totally crazy. Not too many people can pony that kind of cash.

[cbbryan]

I would rather an individual own the Cubs, instead of a corp. like the Trib. owning the Cubs.

 

I would also, like the Boss in NY. But with the amount of money its going to take to get a deal done (and dont kid yourself, even with 300M committed over the upcoming years- no way do the Cubs go for less than 800M), its just no longer feasible.

 

I fully expect the Cubs to go somewhere in the $1B range. Too many interested parties already that have a serious load of cash and ties.

 

This is one of the marquee sports franchises in all of Sports, with a huge fan base, stadium, and big TV contracts already in place. Also Baseball as a whole is doing very well profit wise atm (look at Seligs comments last week), so really i dont think 1B is totally crazy. Not too many people can pony that kind of cash.

 

I don't see them going that high. Forbes only valued them in the mid 400 million range. I think they'll go for somewhere in the neighborhood of 600-650 Million. I wouldn't be suprised if it went a little over that, but I don't see $1 Billion. (Unless the person buys the Cubs AND WGN)

[CubFanPhilly]

A few points of clarification:

 

1) Zell isn't buying a single share of the Tribune. It will be owned by the Trib employees through an Employee Stock Ownership Plan. Zell is acting as a mezzanine lender in this deal, not as an investor. He is lending $315 million to the new entity in exchange for a note and warrants which would allow him to purchase 40% of the business at a future date;

 

2) The Trib will obviously be highly-leveraged (over 95%), which will dramatically shift its focus from an Earnings Per Share culture to a cashflow-driven culture. The entity will shift its focus to servicing its debt rather than increasing market value;

 

3) The mountain of debt incurred will likely force the Company to sell off assets in order to lessen the annual debt load;

 

4) The "win" scenario for Zell is the Tribune emerges from this transaction as a leaner, smaller, but nonetheless valuable entity. (Think $2-3 billion in market value down the road.) Zell's warrants are worth a good deal more than their strike price netting him anywhere from a $.5 to a $1.5 billion return on his investment. The employees collectively realize a $1.2 bil. to $1.8 bil. windfall. On the other hand if the Company doesn't service its debt and falls into bankruptcy, Zell and the employees realize nothing and the Company is either reorganized, sold again, or liquidated;

 

5) In the final analysis, the common ownership of the Sox and Cubs may be a non-issue and the Trib may not be required to divest of the Cubs;

 

6) However, the Trib will be highly-incentived to sell valuable assets that do not produce significant positive cashflow (like the Cubs);

 

7) If the Trib does not sell the Cubs, we should expect the Company to tighten the payroll significantly; and

 

8) To the extent that the WGN deal doesn't represent fair value for the television rights to the Cub games, any potential buyer is going to discount that from the value. The Cubs are worth far more with the television rights than without them. Look for that contract to be re-negotiated as part of the sale or even for WGN to be spun off as part of the transaction.

 

CFP

[Laura]

I'm really warming up to the idea of Bill Murray assuming he has the capital or group of investors to make it happen.

 

YES!

 

Notes from Phil Rogers

 

Phil Rogers / The Trib[/url]"] Based on the timetable laid out by Tribune Co. Chief Executive Officer Dennis FitzSimons, it's unlikely a new Cubs owner will be formally in place before October. It probably will be March at the earliest before Major League Baseball completes its due diligence and votes on the transfer, which might tie general manager Jim Hendry's hands next off-season.

 

But it's fair to assume that whoever takes over the franchise that has been in the hands of the Wrigley family or Tribune Co. since 1925 will be eager to show he means business. Without knowing whom the new owner will be, it's safe to say he will be embraced.

 

After all, with no pennants in its 26 years, Tribune Co. represents the least successful, longest-tenured ownership group in the major leagues.

 

The dream of many Cubs fans is that someone with the passion of Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban—well, actually Cuban himself—would be turned loose to pursue the kind of success Henry has had with the Red Sox and Cuban is having with the Mavs.

 

While Cuban has an interest in the Cubs, there's almost no chance he could get the team if he tried. He has clashed with White Sox Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf, who could make it difficult to gain approval from MLB's ownership committee. Cuban seems too independent and irreverent for Selig to escort into the fraternity of owners.

 

But if Cuban happens to be the guy who is willing to drop $1 billion on Tribune Co. shareholders, he might just make Selig play ball. That's probably not going to happen, but it will be fun to see where this leads. It's only baseball, after all.

[C.C.]

I'm really warming up to the idea of Bill Murray assuming he has the capital or group of investors to make it happen.

 

YES!

 

Notes from Phil Rogers

 

Phil Rogers / The Trib[/url]"] Based on the timetable laid out by Tribune Co. Chief Executive Officer Dennis FitzSimons, it's unlikely a new Cubs owner will be formally in place before October. It probably will be March at the earliest before Major League Baseball completes its due diligence and votes on the transfer, which might tie general manager Jim Hendry's hands next off-season.

 

But it's fair to assume that whoever takes over the franchise that has been in the hands of the Wrigley family or Tribune Co. since 1925 will be eager to show he means business. Without knowing whom the new owner will be, it's safe to say he will be embraced.

 

After all, with no pennants in its 26 years, Tribune Co. represents the least successful, longest-tenured ownership group in the major leagues.

 

The dream of many Cubs fans is that someone with the passion of Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban—well, actually Cuban himself—would be turned loose to pursue the kind of success Henry has had with the Red Sox and Cuban is having with the Mavs.

 

While Cuban has an interest in the Cubs, there's almost no chance he could get the team if he tried. He has clashed with White Sox Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf, who could make it difficult to gain approval from MLB's ownership committee. Cuban seems too independent and irreverent for Selig to escort into the fraternity of owners.

 

But if Cuban happens to be the guy who is willing to drop $1 billion on Tribune Co. shareholders, he might just make Selig play ball. That's probably not going to happen, but it will be fun to see where this leads. It's only baseball, after all.

 

Cuban can't afford droping a billion on the Cubs. Unless he gets partners. He's worth 2.3 Billion. I can't imagine him cutting his net worth in half.

[Garwilly]

I'm really warming up to the idea of Bill Murray assuming he has the capital or group of investors to make it happen.

 

YES!

 

Notes from Phil Rogers

 

Phil Rogers / The Trib[/url]"] Based on the timetable laid out by Tribune Co. Chief Executive Officer Dennis FitzSimons, it's unlikely a new Cubs owner will be formally in place before October. It probably will be March at the earliest before Major League Baseball completes its due diligence and votes on the transfer, which might tie general manager Jim Hendry's hands next off-season.

 

But it's fair to assume that whoever takes over the franchise that has been in the hands of the Wrigley family or Tribune Co. since 1925 will be eager to show he means business. Without knowing whom the new owner will be, it's safe to say he will be embraced.

 

After all, with no pennants in its 26 years, Tribune Co. represents the least successful, longest-tenured ownership group in the major leagues.

 

The dream of many Cubs fans is that someone with the passion of Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban—well, actually Cuban himself—would be turned loose to pursue the kind of success Henry has had with the Red Sox and Cuban is having with the Mavs.

 

While Cuban has an interest in the Cubs, there's almost no chance he could get the team if he tried. He has clashed with White Sox Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf, who could make it difficult to gain approval from MLB's ownership committee. Cuban seems too independent and irreverent for Selig to escort into the fraternity of owners.

 

But if Cuban happens to be the guy who is willing to drop $1 billion on Tribune Co. shareholders, he might just make Selig play ball. That's probably not going to happen, but it will be fun to see where this leads. It's only baseball, after all.

 

Cuban can't afford droping a billion on the Cubs. Unless he gets partners. He's worth 2.3 Billion. I can't imagine him cutting his net worth in half.

 

As a point, it wouldn't be cutting his net worth in half. It would be tying up half his net worth in one set of assets though.

[FergieJ31]

I used to sort of agree with the thought that Cuban would probably not get enough votes if he wanted to buy the Cubs, but I think the "he's too brash for conservative MLB owners" argument is overplayed and naive. As they said in Spinal Tap, "money talks, bs walks". Arguably Cuban would add intrigue, fan interest and hence positive value to MLB as a whole, and this is what prudent owners should care about with their vote.

 

I also think it's telling that Cuban got a 29-1 approval when he bought the Mavs. Does Phil Rogers think NBA owners are that much less conservative than MLB owners? And I assume Reinsdorf was the lone defector, is that right? If so, I see Jerry had zero influence over other NBA owners.

Edited April 3, 2007 by FergieJ31

[shnsajax]

I'm really warming up to the idea of Bill Murray assuming he has the capital or group of investors to make it happen.

 

YES!

 

Notes from Phil Rogers

 

Phil Rogers / The Trib[/url]"] Based on the timetable laid out by Tribune Co. Chief Executive Officer Dennis FitzSimons, it's unlikely a new Cubs owner will be formally in place before October. It probably will be March at the earliest before Major League Baseball completes its due diligence and votes on the transfer, which might tie general manager Jim Hendry's hands next off-season.

 

But it's fair to assume that whoever takes over the franchise that has been in the hands of the Wrigley family or Tribune Co. since 1925 will be eager to show he means business. Without knowing whom the new owner will be, it's safe to say he will be embraced.

 

After all, with no pennants in its 26 years, Tribune Co. represents the least successful, longest-tenured ownership group in the major leagues.

 

The dream of many Cubs fans is that someone with the passion of Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban—well, actually Cuban himself—would be turned loose to pursue the kind of success Henry has had with the Red Sox and Cuban is having with the Mavs.

 

While Cuban has an interest in the Cubs, there's almost no chance he could get the team if he tried. He has clashed with White Sox Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf, who could make it difficult to gain approval from MLB's ownership committee. Cuban seems too independent and irreverent for Selig to escort into the fraternity of owners.

 

But if Cuban happens to be the guy who is willing to drop $1 billion on Tribune Co. shareholders, he might just make Selig play ball. That's probably not going to happen, but it will be fun to see where this leads. It's only baseball, after all.

 

Cuban can't afford droping a billion on the Cubs. Unless he gets partners. He's worth 2.3 Billion. I can't imagine him cutting his net worth in half.

 

As a point, it wouldn't be cutting his net worth in half. It would be tying up half his net worth in one set of assets though.

 

Given what he has turned his previous business ventures into I don't really see why he would worry. The bottom line is that it is still an investment, and he knows he will see a very good return on investment.

[papabear58]

ROI? Just picture the scene when the Cubs win the world series. One of the most beloved teams in America. A team that even people from other cities that have no ties to Chicago or the Cubs still say, "I'd love to see the Cubbies win it all." The merchandising alone will be astronomical, not to mention all the special meetings, advertisors, investors, ect. that would make ANY owner of the Cubs even more wealthy should they make it work the way it's supposed it.

[C.C.]

ROI? Just picture the scene when the Cubs win the world series. One of the most beloved teams in America. A team that even people from other cities that have no ties to Chicago or the Cubs still say, "I'd love to see the Cubbies win it all." The merchandising alone will be astronomical, not to mention all the special meetings, advertisors, investors, ect. that would make ANY owner of the Cubs even more wealthy should they make it work the way it's supposed it.

 

Yep. Just ask Boston. I swear no matter where I travel (and I travel quite often) I always see Boston hats.

[Magnetic Curses]

I'm really warming up to the idea of Bill Murray assuming he has the capital or group of investors to make it happen.

 

YES!

 

Notes from Phil Rogers

 

Phil Rogers / The Trib[/url]"] Based on the timetable laid out by Tribune Co. Chief Executive Officer Dennis FitzSimons, it's unlikely a new Cubs owner will be formally in place before October. It probably will be March at the earliest before Major League Baseball completes its due diligence and votes on the transfer, which might tie general manager Jim Hendry's hands next off-season.

 

But it's fair to assume that whoever takes over the franchise that has been in the hands of the Wrigley family or Tribune Co. since 1925 will be eager to show he means business. Without knowing whom the new owner will be, it's safe to say he will be embraced.

 

After all, with no pennants in its 26 years, Tribune Co. represents the least successful, longest-tenured ownership group in the major leagues.

 

The dream of many Cubs fans is that someone with the passion of Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban—well, actually Cuban himself—would be turned loose to pursue the kind of success Henry has had with the Red Sox and Cuban is having with the Mavs.

 

While Cuban has an interest in the Cubs, there's almost no chance he could get the team if he tried. He has clashed with White Sox Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf, who could make it difficult to gain approval from MLB's ownership committee. Cuban seems too independent and irreverent for Selig to escort into the fraternity of owners.

 

But if Cuban happens to be the guy who is willing to drop $1 billion on Tribune Co. shareholders, he might just make Selig play ball. That's probably not going to happen, but it will be fun to see where this leads. It's only baseball, after all.

 

Cuban can't afford droping a billion on the Cubs. Unless he gets partners. He's worth 2.3 Billion. I can't imagine him cutting his net worth in half.

 

As a point, it wouldn't be cutting his net worth in half. It would be tying up half his net worth in one set of assets though.

 

it would be a low-risk, low-yield type investment for him. it may make snes, but simply pruchasing the team isn't the end of the expenditures.

[Elrhino]

If Cuban wins the NBA title this year, I strongly look for him to sell the Mavs. He's dropped hints all season that he's taken that franchise as far as it will go, and he's ready to move on to his next challenge. He also half jokingly said that when he was looking to buy the Pirates that his wife told him she would divorce him if he ever controlled more than one sports franchise at a time.

 

Also, the thought that the MLB would never let Cuban in is also way over played. I agree, money talks. Cuban's biggest problems with the NBA have been the control the owners have to give over to a centralized "czar" commissioner like David Stern. The MLB is much more suitable franchise league for Cuban. I also think Cuban will also have a huge supporter in Tom Hicks, considering he combined in a joint venture with Hicks to get a dual purpose stadium built for the Stars and the Mavs.

[mjohnson71]

What I'm worried about is a period where Zell owns the Cubs and firesales everyone off in a salary dumping move so were stuck with a Cubs team made up of AAA players. Kinda like what happened in Florida with the Marlins after they won the World Series. Or in hockey were the St. Louis Blues dumped Chris Pronger for a case of pucks and stick tape.

[Amazing_Grace]

I see payroll contracting pretty much period unless someone who's more concerned with going down in history as the guy that brought a title to the Cubs than with losing millions. The contracts the Cubs handed out this offseason were a transparent ploy to ratchet up the team's value so they could sell it for cash. It didn't really matter who was getting the contracts. This has always been the plan. They don't care about future cash flow problems because they won't have to deal with that. The new owner will take most of the heat for the bad contracts when payroll is cut.

 

This, unfortunately, seems to be the price of getting rid of the incompetent Tribune as an owner. They've probably guaranteed that, if the Cubs don't win this year, they probably won't win for many years down the road.

[Derwood]

wouldn't stonewalling Cuban's attempts to buy the Cubs (presumably based on the other owners 'not liking him') be considered collusion? If I were Cuban (and that happened) I'd be on Capitol Hill as fast as my private jet would get me there

[frostwyrm]

I still haven't heard a convincing explantion for how all these big contracts Hendry just gave out are supposed to increase the value of the team. They have

 

A) created $300 mil in debt for the organization

 

B) placed the Cubs in the position of needing to maintain one of the largest payrolls in the NL to contend until 2011.

 

 

 

If I'm a prospective buyer I can't imagine how these things would make me want to pay more for a team. I can very well imagine them making me want pay less though.

[C.C.]

I still haven't heard a convincing explantion for how all these big contracts Hendry just gave out are supposed to increase the value of the team. They have

 

A) created $300 mil in debt for the organization

 

B) placed the Cubs in the position of needing to maintain one of the largest payrolls in the NL to contend until 2011.

 

 

 

If I'm a prospective buyer I can't imagine how these things would make me want to pay more for a team. I can very well imagine them making me want pay less though.

 

But the $300 million in debt is spread over many years. The fact remains that our payroll is very reasonable for a big market team. Why would this be bad? If people are willing to spend upwards of $600 - 1 billion, I hardly think a 100-110 million dollar payroll would matter...

[Soul]

I still haven't heard a convincing explantion for how all these big contracts Hendry just gave out are supposed to increase the value of the team. They have

 

A) created $300 mil in debt for the organization

 

B) placed the Cubs in the position of needing to maintain one of the largest payrolls in the NL to contend until 2011.

 

 

 

If I'm a prospective buyer I can't imagine how these things would make me want to pay more for a team. I can very well imagine them making me want pay less though.

 

Possibly true.

 

However, I can think of nothing that would decrease the value of a team more than an empty ballpark and a bottom-feeding ballclub. Presumably the acquisition of talent was at least designed to remedy some of that----probably more the fan interest than the winning.

[frostwyrm]

I still haven't heard a convincing explantion for how all these big contracts Hendry just gave out are supposed to increase the value of the team. They have

 

A) created $300 mil in debt for the organization

 

B) placed the Cubs in the position of needing to maintain one of the largest payrolls in the NL to contend until 2011.

 

 

 

If I'm a prospective buyer I can't imagine how these things would make me want to pay more for a team. I can very well imagine them making me want pay less though.

 

But the $300 million in debt is spread over many years. The fact remains that our payroll is very reasonable for a big market team. Why would this be bad? If people are willing to spend upwards of $600 - 1 billion, I hardly think a 100-110 million dollar payroll would matter...

 

100-110 mil. is still a very big payroll for an MLB team, and really it won't be enough to to field a contender in 2008 and especially 2009, assuming Z eventually gets signed. It'll take at least $125M to make a repectable attempt at contention in 2009, and very likely a good deal more than $125M. If I'm a prospective buyer that's the type of crap that would make me walk the asking price down, not up.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Ok, so Rogers thinks that Reinsdorf would push other owners to reject Cuban. I think it could be just the opposite. Follow my logic here.

 

Zell and Reinsdorf are close friends. It would be to Zell's advantage for the Cubs to sell at the highest possible price. If Cuban is the one offering the most money, wouldn't Zell then ask Reinsdorf to help the sale go forward?

 

Am I speculating? Yes, but so was Rogers. I personally don't think Cuban will have any problems being approved assuming his bid is a good bit higher than the next highest bid.